🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public get over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,